3 ms·

There was this from a few years ago too: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10611 http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10611 -- I think it was the same sort of "app

by seiji 16y ago

There was this from a few years ago too: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10611 http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10611 -- I think it was the same sort of "append a param to the URL" event. We're at a gaping chasm of misunderstanding here. Tech people see websites as things to be used and toyed with. Non-tech people see websites as things that have terms of service that are supposed to legally restrict what you can do. "YOU MUST NOT ACCESS THIS WEBSITE IN ANY AUTOMATED FASHION WHATSOEVER." They argue on a basis resembling: "You wouldn't break into the admissions office and steal the list of accepted candidates, would you?" We counter-argue that it's like knowing a person who can't lie to you. If you ask them for the result, they give you the result. Is it illegal to ask for an answer if they don't even hesitate to give it to you?

surlyadopter 16y ago
I think that is the same line of reasoning some warez/piracy sites used to put those "if you are a law enforcement personnel you are not allowed to view this website" messages.
tvon 16y ago
Doesn't that counter argument amount to "but it's easy, and tempting"?
- seiji 16y ago
  Exactly right. Let's jump further in to not-quite-isomorphic-analogy land. Consider banks not having vaults and instead leaving their money sitting out in the open. It would be easy and tempting to swipe some. Doing so may be "wrong" technically, but by the availability and lack of security, one can presume the banks are aware of the risks and can tolerate some shrink. I would argue it's not wrong if they put no security in place, it's in a public place, and no person is denied a resource by your act of accessing the public resource with no security.
  - warfangle 16y ago
    To take it a liiiittle further: Like a bank whose tellers (a gatekeeping mechanism) will give you however much money you ask for as long as you end your sentence with "swordfish" - they just don't tell anyone about swordfish.

by seiji 16y ago

surlyadopter 16y ago

I think that is the same line of reasoning some warez/piracy sites used to put those "if you are a law enforcement personnel you are not allowed to view this website" messages.

tvon 16y ago

Doesn't that counter argument amount to "but it's easy, and tempting"?

seiji 16y ago
Exactly right. Let's jump further in to not-quite-isomorphic-analogy land. Consider banks not having vaults and instead leaving their money sitting out in the open. It would be easy and tempting to swipe some. Doing so may be "wrong" technically, but by the availability and lack of security, one can presume the banks are aware of the risks and can tolerate some shrink. I would argue it's not wrong if they put no security in place, it's in a public place, and no person is denied a resource by your act of accessing the public resource with no security.
- warfangle 16y ago
  To take it a liiiittle further: Like a bank whose tellers (a gatekeeping mechanism) will give you however much money you ask for as long as you end your sentence with "swordfish" - they just don't tell anyone about swordfish.